User talk:Angusmclellan

WP:AE

Angus, are you familiar with the language of WP:REVERT, where a revert "is any action that reverses the actions of another editor?" This is the way cases are usually closed at the WP:3RR board. An edit can be a revert even though it doesn't restore a previous version of the article. Changes in different areas of an article, performed in a single day, are all counted as reverts even though they don't focus on a single topic. Though AE is a much scarier place than 3RR, I'm not sure why the 1RR rule would be interpreted differently there. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"An[y] edit can be a revert ... [c]hanges ... are all counted as reverts..."? I'll stick policy's with "repeatedly override each other's contributions" as being an adequate summary of what reverting looks like in practice. Every time I try to write a longer explanation it ends up containing too many gerunds, so we'll leave it at that. There's no meeting of minds here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

'Repeatedly override' is part of the broad summary given at the top of the WP:Edit war page. Later, when it gets down to specifics, it uses the language 'any action that reverses the actions of another editor.' Do you consider the two sections to disagree with one another? EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I like broad summaries, they tend to be clearer. My rule of thumb, paraphrasing Potter Stewart, is that I know a revert, or an edit-war, when I see one. So that'll have to be a yes then. I do think that there is a conflict between the plain language of the lead and the far from clear text in the body. I am not at all sure what additional sense "any action that (sic.) reverses the actions of another editor" is supposed to convey to the informed reader. I certainly don't propose to read it literally since that would lead to ridiculous outcomes. Assuming it is intended to cover reverts which don't immediately look like reverts, I didn't see any of those here unless I assume bad faith and imagine that some form of collusion is ongoing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hart

Hi Angus,

Let me first say that I think you and Rockpocket have done excellent work de-poving the Peter Hart article from the hatchet job that it was. You'll also be aware that Domer and I don't exactly see eye to eye. However, once you have seen off the pov-pushing, there is a genuine content issue here.

Is it not legitimate to mention that here has been criticism of Hart's work and interpretations? (Not all of it from he likes of the Aubane Historical Society). Just a question, as I have no intention of getting involved in that particular can of worms. Jdorney (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It is surely legitimate. Just so long as it is well-referenced and doesn't get into WP:COATRACK territory. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, well whenever the war there is finished we can look at it again. Jdorney (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading up on the Aubane Historical Society (never heard of them till 10 minutes ago) and apart from the fact that some virulent anti-nationalist groups and people don't like them I fail to see what makes them "unreliable" untouchables. At least to anyone who supports WP:NPOV when it comes to Irish historical articles. Sarah777 (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Questionable sources is what you're after. If you think the continuation of B&ICO is not extremist I'm afraid we'll need to agree to differ. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Did I mention "extremist"? I thought I was talking about reliability or otherwise. Sarah777 (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The two ideas are inseparable. Extremists are never reliable unless talking about themselves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Simplistic or wha?! Reading a book by a chap (Michael Scheuer) who worked in the CIA for 20 years and admits he was a key player in their rendition program. He favours terminating US enemies with extreme prejudice and is indifferent to "collateral" casualties. But he openly admits that a majority of Muslims across the globe actually were pleased with 9/11. Opinion polls tend to support this. So, question: Is supporting 9/11 an "extreme" view? (I'm not suggesting B&ICO are remotely equivalent in their departure from conditioned responses) - but what is "extreme"? Tell me? Sarah777 (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, you may also want to have a look at the Kilmichael Ambush page, the site of the other 'set-piece' controversey over the 'IRA and its Enemies', if you're removing the anti-Hart stuff from WP articles. Jdorney (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Logging

Hiya, just to clarify the paperwork, was Domer48's ban under the Troubles case or WP:BLPBAN? If the latter, then the ban should probably be logged at WP:BLPLOG. --Elonka 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very poor manners to push in in front of Sarah777. Sorry but it does make things more readable.

It was both. I'd have let him have more rope if this weren't a Troubles article. But I expect we'd have got to the same place in the end. I'll add it at the BLP log. Thanks. By the way, did you get my email last week? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

'tis OK Ang - I'm well used to your manners by now. Sarah777 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was under "irritation to folk-who-think-they-know-what-an-extremist-is" :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@Angus: Yes, sorry I forgot to reply. The answer however is, "Nope, haven't noticed anything recently." --Elonka 02:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Angus, I see you never got around to logging this, as you said above. Also, you banned him from the article, but blocked him for an edit on the talk page, which merely referred to BLP/V, rather than inserting material in violation of those policies. Might I suggest you save the block for something unequivocal?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think I will save the block for later. If you want to unblock him, go right ahead. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a rubbish block, as ONiH pointed out no remedy allows you to issue a page ban. If you want to claim otherwise, provide a link to where you can. Your ban also says that Domer is banned from the article, traditionally such wording doesn't cover talk pages. BigDunc 16:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Per your permission above, I have unblocked Domer48, as I don't believe that his edit was in violation of your BLPBAN. Should future edits violate it, of course, I have no problem with a reblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good unblock Sarek. Also ONiH allured to WP:BLPBAN, and said the required procedure wasn't followed. Unless you provide a diff where you "counselled" him on "specific steps" prior to warning him, he can't be blocked. ONiH obviously didn't think you'd followed the procedure and neither do I. BigDunc 16:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing acquiescence with consent. As for BigDunc's plea for counselling, Domer48 has been page-banned before. He should be able to remember whether that included the talk page. So did it? Don't look here if you don't want to know the answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrators should counsel editors who fail to comply with BLP policy... and Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them, when did you do this? BigDunc 16:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd start at Talk:Peter Hart. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I will find on the talk were you specifically counseled Domer is that what you are alluding to? BigDunc 16:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Angus, in that link above, Domer was explicitly banned from the article and talk page. In your recent BLPBAN, you only explicitly banned him from the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to contest both the troubles and BLP special enforcement. The troubles rfar doesn't allow discretionary topic bans on its own, and I've seen no evidence that Domer's action on Peter Hart justify invoking BLP special enforcement (compare with the other logged actions) Were either of these done via consensus on an AN or ANI board?--Tznkai (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest, rather than ban Domer from that page, he agree to take this incident (and the advice offered by an increasing number of people about criticism and BLPs) under consideration apropos his future editing at Peter Hart and associated pages. It would be much better for everyone if this could be resolved without restrictions. However, I have noted that I will take this to AE (or ANI) to gauge consensus on such a ban if these BLP concerns continue. Rockpocket 19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What advice would that be he is essentially being hounded from the page by the Scotish admin brigade with blocks and bans and threats of blocks, and it transpires spurious into the bargin, so what were the words of wisdom, IMO John was the only who remotely showed good faith to what Domer was doing. BigDunc 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Does every administrative action require lengthy discussion beforehand, or only blocks, or perhaps it's just page bans? Why would page bans require more discussion than blocks which are rarely discussed? I'm not looking for answers. I know what I think the answers are. I'm always open to reconsideration if you can show me why I'm mistaken, but I feel that you're not off to a good start. I've think I've seen ample evidence that Domer48's editing in relation to Peter Hart, whether at the article of that name or elsewhere, justifies action. There are more than enough recent examples of Domer48 not hearing disagreeable things at the Hart article and others, and also in Wikispace, for me to conclude that nothing but a page ban - or indeed several page bans - will stop Domer48 from pushing coat-racks of criticism of Hart based on questionable sources into any article he can. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What are the BLP violations that I committed? You have not addressed any of the concerns raised here or addressed any of the questions you were asked. Please remove this here or mark it overturned, and this here likewise. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that first diff needs to be modified at this time, but I will make a note on that second one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Angus, topic bans and BLPBANs are more significant than blocks, which are actually trivially easy to overturn. More creative sanctions should be preauthorized by ArbCom remedy or community consensus, or supported by them after the fact. The onus is on the administrator to make the case for such enforcement, and likewise, if such actions turn out to be controversial, to reconsider them. In this case, Domer can be fairly accused of editing in a way that is irritating and not the best writing, but I have seen little evidence that this goes beyond a pedestrian content dispute to the damaging of a living person.--Tznkai (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does need an addendum. As Jdorney pointed out, there's more coat-rackery at Kilmichael Ambush#Controversy, complete with more questionable sources. So we have three articles in all, assuming we haven't missed any, with criticisms of Peter Hart. Is this rather excessive when the criticism is based on the propaganda publications of a tiny extremist group and the biographer of one of the key figures in the disputed events? I should say that it is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That section is a perfect example of the issue here. Read that, Tznkai, and tell me it is a fair treatment of Hart. Then consider this has been going on across multiple articles for many months. The persistent and systematic editing of Wikipedia to selectively attack the work of one academic using a questionable sources, across multiple articles, is hardly a "pedestrian content dispute". Selectively quoting these individuals (from the same questionable sources) in an attempt to label his work "sectarian" is a undoubtedly a BLP issue. Just because it isn't simple doesn't make it any less of a problem. What exactly would you suggest, considering the advice and requests of multiple admins and outside editors are completely ignored or rebuffed? Rockpocket 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading, will comment more conclusively later. I was given the impression originally that the issue was only the Peter Hart issue. I do however, remind that not all undue weight issues that involving living persons are BLP problems. IFF the work is genuinely controversial, then that should be noted, though not necessarily addressed in detail.--Tznkai (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, no-one is claiming that there are not disputes and no-one is saying that they should not be noted. As you will see, I wrote a neutral balanced section addressing the controversial issues which Domer reverted. The issue is one editor, counter to consensus, selectively using sources to further a position (and in doing so, whether purposefully or not, systematically and solely attacking one notable, published academic whose work the editor has vocally dismissed). The critical material? Chunks of text culled from pamphlets published by Pro-Nationalist groups, Indymedia, letters to the editor of newspapers (I kid you not), An Phoblacht, the list goes on. In other words, everything and anything a google search will turn up when it comes to criticizing Hart. This is not how we write BLPs. When the attack material is removed from the bio, it goes into other articles. Even when the material has nothing to do with the content in article itself, it is still used as a forum to criticize Hart. So, again, how do we stop this from continuing when asking nicely and giving advice is unheeded? Rockpocket 22:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see Rock has problems with identifying conditioned responses. The only thing that makes this "historian" notable is his controversiality. So we must explore that fully. Rock dismisses a whole subset of the media on the grounds that it is "pro-nationalist" ! Let's be consistent and dismiss the Anglo MSM on the rather obvious grounds that it is overwhelmingly anti-nationalist. WP:NPOV demands no less. Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai should ask you to back up your personal attack and if proved, I will volunteer to walk away for a month. However if it is nothing more than a dishonest attack they should lose your tools as not fit to have them. As to this myth about sources:

The first Discussion on the RS notice board.

• We weren't asked to rule on whether the Aubane Historical Society is RS in all circumstances. Obviously it is as a general rule not RS. Instead we were asked about a specific case and have given advice tailored to that case. Itsmejudith

• All right, if you like, there is a consensus among uninvolved commentators here that the AHS source is as a rule not reliable. But there may be a few cases in which it can be used and we need context to be able to advise further. Itsmejudith

Now the blocked sock abusing IP closed this discussion as Aubane Historical Society is clearly Not a Reliable Source.

However at ANI with the result.

This is the trainwreck of a WP:RS noticeboard discussion. Closure by IP editor did not seem to match consensus - I would say it should have been closed "no consensus". Regardless... here it is. Simonm223

Now Elonka made this determination of consensus on the article. Not exactly in line with the consensus obviously. Even the IP said as much “As described and referenced at AN/I, where it was brought at your [Elonka’s] direction, your 'determination' was challenged by editors representing both sides of the discussion and found no editor supporting it. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet Elonka calls that consensus? [1]

The current discussion at the RS noticeboard also does not support Elonka’s suggestion, quite the opposite in fact.

• The consensus of those who regularly contribute to this board is that Aubane is not a good source for historical articles. We should try and find better sources. But policy makes it clear that there can be exceptions. Itsmejudith
• For example, when authors' scholarly credentials are independently established their Aubane-published sources could be considered. Itsmejudith
• the author is more important than the publisher in cases like this. If it is clear that the author of a self-published book pass the bar set by those policy statements, then it does not matter whether the publisher is a vanity press. Blueboar
• If the authors have been published elsewhere, we can consider them "acknowledged experts" and cite their self-published books. Blueboar
• Applying WP:V and WP:RS to the issue... when a source is published by Aubane, use caution. Blueboar
• Look a bit deeper... see who the author is and what else the author has published. Our policies do not "ban" self-published sources... but they do limit them. So you need to determine if the specific source and author pass those limitations. Blueboar

Now Elonka is not alone in her misinformed opinion, so are John here and here Rockpocket here and of course Angusmclellan. So please stop with the questionable sources nonsense. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Still ignoring the questions above! This is not about questionable sources, its about your questionable actions. Your views and the very strong opinions expressed above would be a concern if you were to edit these articles. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would I waste your time and mine in the pretence of a dialogue? Oldthinkers unbellyfeel IngsocWikipedia. How could we communicate? I had thought to use the word xyloglossia to describe my perception of how you conduct a discussion. Apparently that doesn't exist on Google books. Think of it as your very own protologism.

You asked about the use of AHS material at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. You didn't like the answer there. You don't like my answer. But will that stop you? Apparently not. You say you've read BLP but you evidently didn't understand it. Like I say, why waste my time and yours? You have surely memorised lots of acronyms, but you don't bellyfeel them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a conversation on Wikipedia without someone invoking Orwell for once?--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, here's my opinion on the situation:

Sadly, it does appear to be true that discretionary sanctions are not authorized via the current wording at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. This actually surprised me, as such sanctions are pretty routinely authorized in other cases related to nationalist disputes (WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBMAC, WP:DIGWUREN, etc.). Perhaps it's because the Troubles case is older (2007), and discretionary sanctions didn't start to be routinely authorized until 2008. To address this, I recommend that we open a thread discussing the matter, perhaps at WP:AN. The question to the community would be simple: Would it be reasonable for administrators to use discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area?

Now, having said that above, I would argue that Angus's page ban of Domer48 was still a reasonable thing to do. Domer48 had been inserting controversial information into a BLP article, using unreliable sources from the Aubane Historical Society. Multiple recent threads have affirmed a clear consensus that AHS is an unreliable source. Domer48 is well aware of this, so for him to continue to argue that AHS is a reliable source, is clearly disruptive. On that basis alone, as soon as Domer48 started using AHS again, he could have been blocked for disruption. It is my opinion that a temporary page ban is far more lenient than a block, since it's only limiting one editor from editing one article for a few months, rather than blocking their account access entirely. So on that basis, I feel that the page ban was justified.

However, having said that I agree with Angus's implementation of a page ban, I have to disagree with Angus's implementation of a followup block. Page bans are routinely understood to apply only to the editing of an actual article, unless specifically expanded to include the article and talkpage. So it was reasonable for Domer48 to assume that though he was banned from the article, he could still post comments on the talkpage until told otherwise. So, I agree with Sarek on this matter about overturning the block. I also commend Sarek for doing things the right way, and checking with the blocking admin first, rather than simply overturning the block on sight. Especially because this was described as an ArbCom enforcement ban (be it for Troubles or BLPBAN), as such bans are not to be overturned lightly.

In terms of how to proceed, my recommendations are:

• We should start a thread at an admin noticeboard, to clarify the issue of whether discretionary sanctions are reasonable in the Troubles topic area (I feel strongly that they are needed)
• Domer48, because of disruptive behavior, should be placed under formal probation via the Troubles case.
• If Domer48 persists in inserting any AHS sources into any article, his account access should be blocked, not because of an ArbCom case, but simply because he's violating WP:V and ignoring consensus from WP:RSN.

--Elonka 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

An Ogam inscribed stone found at Ballintaggart, County Kerry. The text is read as "MAQQI IARI (K)[OI] MAQQI MUCCOI DOVVINIAS", commemorating a member of the Corco Duibne (is that first name Mac Ercae I wonder?) Drawn by Cork architect and antiquarian Richard Rolt Brash (1817–1876) and published in 1879 in his posthumous work The Ogam Inscribed Monuments of the Gaedhil in the British islands. More on this stone at TITUS Ogamica.

My main concern remains the use of questionable sources in a BLP and in what amount to BLP sections in articles with other subjects. Tznkai doesn't like Orwellian allusions, so how about Terminator ones?. Domer48 tells us himself that he "absolutely will not stop. Ever." And I believe him. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the merits of the content dispute yet, but I am going to say that BLP special enforcement is a Big Stick best reserved for really bad cases. Domer is nothing if not stubborn, true, but I don't think he's out to ruin anyone's reputation. If you feel strongly about a topic ban, I would point y'all at WP:AN/I. I will not contest any administrator placing Domer under general probation.--Tznkai (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum to my comment, my concern is not just process wonkery- topic bans should have a lot of eyes on them when they are potentially controversial, and I think BLP special enforcement needs to be reserved for certain cases to ensure that when it is needed, it sticks.--Tznkai (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely it is best to set aside the disputed topic ban at this time. ONiH appears to have succeeded where the rest of us failed. He wrote Domer: I would advise Domer in the strongest possible terms not to add the disputed material in question or any other possibly controversial material without clear consensus on the talk page. This should forestall the need for any petty and vindictive blocks, and unless Domer says he is going to restore the material and block that is attempted is not a preventative one and therefore against policy. [2] Domer's response, "It [the ban] will be ignored and your advice taken on board" [3] appears to suggest he will not be adding "possibly controversial material without clear consensus on the talk page" henceforth, which should preclude the need for the ban. If Domer decide to change his mind and add "possibly controversial material without clear consensus on the talk page", we can easily take this to ANI and see if there is consensus for a reinstatement. Does this sound reasonable? Rockpocket 00:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever works works for me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka I've clearly illustrated above that you are wrong, recent threads have not affirmed a clear consensus that AHS is an unreliable source. Confirmed also at ANI that there was no consensus. Sadly, it does appear to be true that discretionary sanctions are not authorized via the current wording at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles...I would argue that Angus's page ban of Domer48 was still a reasonable thing to do. Its because of comments like that it would not "be reasonable for administrators to use discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area." Now not only was the ban wrong under the troubles, it was not even right under WP:BLP. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@Angus: I went ahead and put both Mooretwin and Domer48 under probation for 90 days, for recent edit-warring at Sinn Féin. Angus, would you like to start a thread at WP:AN about the discretionary sanction issue? It'll be nice to have a clear community consensus affirming authorization for discretionary sanctions in the topic area. And if for some reason there's not a clear consensus, at least it'll be a next step towards filing an ArbCom Request for Clarification. --Elonka 01:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka having not been able to support the ban do you seriously think your probation will be seen as anything other than an petty attempt to provoke? Now I suggest you go to ANI because I'll be ignoring this latest BS. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

@Angus: There is now an ANI thread about the Troubles probation, here. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to raise the issue of authorizing discretionary sanctions in the entire topic area? --Elonka 21:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka. Have left a comment. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Had any luck?

I don't know if you saw but I replied to you on my talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with that person.

We definitely need to expand Osraige, but their ancestry is problematic. I've come across a third claim, based on a pedigree I haven't seen, that they may have claimed kinship with the Dál Fiatach (why?) up north in addition to the Laigin. But see my musings in the response.

Another Munster kingdom I've looked at are the once powerful Corca Oiche. Facts: 1) They came under Uí Fidgenti overlordship in the 6th or 7th century after losing a major battle. 2) St Molua belonged to their ruling dynasty. 3) That dynasty branches from the Corcu Loígde pedigree at a fairly early point. 4) An online place name expert appears convinced they were actually migrating Cruthin from Ulster. Do you know anything about them? DinDraithou (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I did see it, thanks very much! I'll have a look and see if I can find anything about the Corca Oiche, but I don't have much in the way of material on early peoples. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Corcu Duibne has now turned a pretty blue, btw. I'll try to do Corcu Baiscind soon. DinDraithou (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't optimistic about the Corcu Óiche, but there's actually something useful on them in Ó Cróinín's Early Medieval Ireland and a bit more in Charles-Edwards' Early Christian Ireland, plus the usual passing mentions elsewhere. For the Corcu Duibne it would be nice to have a picture of one of the Ogam stones. I think I should be able to find one in an old book on Google or archive.org. And even I should be able to make a map for that! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't own it, but most of Charles-Edwards is available online. Ó Cróinín I may not have access to (I live way out in the countryside presently). When I start the article I'll let you know. Something I failed to mention is that their ancient dynasty is still extant as the O'Macasa (Mackessy) family, so they definitely deserve the article. The Mountcollins article says it was in or close to Corca Óiche, or however it should really be spelled. DinDraithou (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You can add Corcu Óche as well to the spellings! The easiest thing is just to pick one at random and make redirects for all the others you can think of. I wouldn't worry about trying to be consistent in spelling. Anybody who is deeply concerned about that can always move the article. I'm off to look for a Corcu Duibne ogam stone now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Embrace the mud

Hi Angus. My biggest error earlier was assuming I might be dealing with fanpeople with some idea of the bad dating supporting these theories but I don't think anyone has, even though Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) is only a click away. This means the upcoming article will require some intricate explanation and reference numerous recent studies, or it will be lost on people. The only way to portray Oppenheimer is as an out-of-his-league popular writer who based his best theories on other people's errors. More accurately he appears to be a celebrity "defender of the mud people", trying to increase his celebrity stature by adopting them and "interpreting" their mud-headed views for the evolved public, who see them embarrassing themselves trying to become somebody else's ancient people. Right? But of course we can't say that.

I'm working on it at User:DinDraithou/Genetic history of Ireland, currently adding sources. Feel free to contribute to the page, or even create the article from it if I'm going slow. Embrace the mud. DinDraithou (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And btw thank you. The expression is used too frequently where I come from and frequently negatively, or is forced out of people who don't want to say it. So I tend not to say it on the interwebs because I'm worried I'll sound mockingly ungrateful or sarcastic. Cheers. DinDraithou (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No bother. I'm afraid I won't be any help at all on genetics stuff. I've read Cavalli-Sforza's book (the one for dummies) and a couple of papers, and that's it. Well, and Oppenheimer too, but we won't count him! But you could try Alun (User:Wobble) if you want an outside opinion. I don't think he's very active right now but he's still around sometimes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Kilmichael

A good online article re the controversey. Well worth a read if you want to get past the pov and get acquainted with the sources. The Kilmichael Ambush - A Review of Background, Controversies and Effects, by Seamus Fox (2005)

Jdorney (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a very interesting article. Many thanks indeed for the link! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation of Byzantine Empire

A RfM has been submitted at the RfM page here for the article Byzantine Empire. You may add any comments you may have on this page and are welcome, but your presence is not required. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 31#Category:Hundreds of Yorkshire etc

I think this should be relisted (perhaps spearately). In Yorkshire they are Wapentakes; in Cumberland Wards; etc (as in the nom). This is a case where reality is untidy, and WP cannot impose order where there is none. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

True. But that doesn't mean some of us won't try! Did you ever hear of a lamb voting for Easter? Me neither. Sarah777 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You had me puzzled for a minute there. Do people eat lamb particularly at Easter? I usually have it at Xmas. Turkey is more likely to be scoffed chez Angus in the form of schnitzel and quite often. Or it was when I was in Belgium. I haven't managed to find any in Scotlandshire yet. Maybe next year. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

According to a free if not always reliable encyclopedia: "Many families have a traditional Sunday roast, particularly of roast lamb which is regarded as the traditional Easter feast." Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles discretionary sanctions

Hiya, FYI, I have filed a request for amendment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_The_Troubles.. Would you like to file a statement, in regards your own experience with trying to implement a page ban? Or if not, would it be alright with you if I brought it up? --Elonka 20:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll certainly comment later. At the moment I am making one of these as jvdb requested. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed, but looking good! May I add to it, or would you prefer that I maintain a separate list in my own userspace? --Elonka 23:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please add away! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it okay if I reformat, too? Like to put it in a table? Or would that make things more difficult for you? --Elonka 00:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A table will be fine. I'll see if I can beat you to it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Francia / Carolignian empire interwii

Hello, I noticed you first reverted and next repaired interwiki links in Carolingian Empire and Francia. Ther were some problems yet, so I tried to repair the rest. Please, can you check it? JAn Dudík (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Can you give me some more information on the problems your bot found? The only remaining problem I could find was with Hungarian on Carolingian Empire; I changed both en and hu to what I think are the right interwikis. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

USC

Your help would be appreciated in ongoing clean up and de-pov work here at Ulster Special Constabulary. Jdorney (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hemming's Cartulary

I've put Hemming's Cartulary up for peer review, here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Hemming's Cartulary/archive1. Comments are appreciated. (I should be picking up two works on the Cotton Library tomorrow which will hopefully give me more background on how the manuscript came into the hands of Sir R. Cotton). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a read through and see if I can come up with something sensible to say. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Dunmanway Massacre

I created the article with the name The Dunmanway Massacre. The name was changed on October 28 with no notice to me. I am willing to go through the hoops to justify my compromise name (The Dunmanway murders); did the cabal of republican supporters who changed the article's name do so? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I did as you recommended. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The move discussion is here in case you'd like to participate. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi (bis)

Hi Angus. I am planning to use this remarkable book as a reference: L'Europe et l'Islam, Quinze siècles d'histoire, by Henry Laurens, John Tolan, Gilles Veinstein, Editions Odile Jacob, 2009 ISBN 9782738122193. What do you think? Per Honor et Gloria ^Talk 09:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

However good a book it is, and the reviews are decent enough, Veinstein's name is mud in some quarters, and rightly so. Whatever his merits as a historian of the early modern period, he's on record writing some supremely stupid things on matters outwith his field of expertise. This is not to say that you shouldn't use the book, but before adding it as a source you should think hard about the reaction you'll get and whether you want the resulting troubles. Avoid anything to do with Anatolia and the Caucausus and you should be safe enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Angus! Per Honor et Gloria ^Talk 14:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Re image deletion

Hi Anugusmclellan, I see that you deleted File:Footing of Humber footbridge in river.jpg (local copy) because it's been moved to Commons, despite the {{nocommons}} template. Please reconsider. I've seen too many images disappear over at Commons for capricious reasons, with no attempt to contact the original uploader in this project, to want to have to depend on them keeping images I have uploaded, which is why I put the template on. Risker (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Undeleted and so is File:Humber footbridge 2.JPG. Sorry about that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Angus. I know what it's like when doing a big task. Thanks very much. Risker (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Corcu Baiscind and Múscraige

Hello there, Angus! I have created Corcu Baiscind, and Múscraige! DinDraithou (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also Dáire mac Dedad, Íar mac Dedad, and Dedu mac Sin. For the last I have made redirects (Dedad, Dedaid) but Deda was an article about something deleted. It says I need an admin. Could you redirect it? DinDraithou (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 November 11

I noticed your edit summary on this edit and investigated the issue. It turns out someone used the AFD closing templates instead of the FFD version, which made the bot decide that discussion wasn't closed. If you see any issues like that again, please don't hesitate to drop a note at User talk:AnomieBOT to let me know there is an issue. Anomie⚔ 22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

<rant>Damn bots are taking over the world!</rant> Many thanks for the explanation. I'd have been forever finding that myself. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

IFD again

Re: this, we just went through an IFD for these, Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_July_23#9_David_Eddings_Malloreon_.26_Chess_book_covers. Naturally you have the right to bring it to XFD again, but....is it really necessary? Dreadstar ☥ 02:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait, are you nominating just the "extra" book covers at the beginning of the article or all of them? Dreadstar ☥ 02:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

For now just the one. I don't like multiple nominations. Let's see what happens with it. You can read why I think it is necessary here. Most Wikipedias get by with no non-free content. I wouldn't go that far, but I would like to see 95%+ of our current non-free material gone. Boilerplate rationales were supposed to have been gotten rid of, but they're as common as ever they were. Since I'm not stupid enough to run for arbcom, and am far too lazy to be a clerk of any sort, but need something wikipolitical to keep me amused I'll have this Crusade for Freedom instead. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)